Countering the Phelps Clan

Today the Supreme Court made the obvious decision to uphold the First Amendment by siding with the odious Fred Phelps and his borderline-comically fanatic brood, known for protesting at gay and military funerals. Free speech includes hateful speech, after all, and any effort by the government to curtail unpopular expression, no matter how justified it feels, is gravely wrong-headed.

There remains, though, the problem of what to do with such unrepentant assholes; one of Ta-Nehisi Coates' commenters, JonF311, posted a lovely idea which--since it isn't turning up on Google--I'll just repost verbatim:

When Westboro Baptist protested the opening of a gay bar in Traverse City MI ten year ago, the bar had a rather creative response. They held a "sponsor a protestor" party, inviting patrons to pledge some amount of money for each minute a selected protestor continued his/her protesting. (It was a bitterly cold winter day). Some of the patrons even bought hot chocolate for the protestors to keep them going. And at the end of the event the bar informed the protestors how much money their presence had just raised for the HRC, and invited them back the next day.

When life gives you lemons, squirt citric acid into life's eyes.

It Gets Better?

Gay teachers in the U.K. are being harassed by students:

Rhys added: "There were high levels of homophobia in my school. Students would ask, 'Do you like men or do you like women sir?'

"There was one boy who used to run past my classroom, kick open the door, shout abuse daily.

"Eventually it was dealt with and I got an apology but I was lucky."

Heter-Row

Via Fark, some considerate whelps thought it would be a good idea to wear Straight Pride shirts to school during the gay-friendly, anti-bullying Ally Week:

Several students complained to high school administrators Monday -- the first day of an anti-bullying "Ally Week" -- when three students wore the T-shirts, which also quoted a Biblical passage advocating death as a punishment for homosexual activity.

The administration stepped in and asked them to cover up the offending messages, and they obliged.

Time was when I probably would have been in favor of the administration's position. High school is a miserable time, goes the reasoning, and this doesn't help.

But look at the context: this was happening amid an anti-bullying event organized by the campus Gay-Straight Alliance. The gay students are not isolated. If anything, the people advocating death for homosexuals are the marginal actors here. They want students to "learn about people who might have a different opinion than theirs," but if anything these clowns should have been the ones getting an education. The GSA should have allowed them to wear their hateful attire and then singled them out for being the heartless little assholes they are, mocked their backwards, iron-age beliefs, and shamed the bigots into covering their messages up.

That's the real free speech lesson. People have differing opinions that should be aired. But if you're going to say something controversial, then you're going to have to take responsibility for it and face the ensuing shitstorm. I would hope that we and our high schools have progressed enough that such a point could be made.

It Gets Better, Even If It Wasn't So Bad

I've wrestled with whether or not to contribute to Dan Savage's It Gets Better project, which aims to give bullied gay youth a glimpse of the much brighter future that awaits them once the hell of high school is passed. My reasons are about the same as Andrew Sullivan's (I wish I could find the post, but in scanning the last week's worth I'm coming up empty), that I didn't suffer especially cruel treatment in high school--I made up for it with lots of brooding anyway and the usual teenage angst--and thus it's not my place to tell kids who had it much worse than me that it will get better.

No, I didn't get much shit from my peers in high school, for a few reasons:

0. I would like to think my class, one of the smaller ones in my high school of 350 students at best, was a tight-knit group that had its cliques but didn't seriously ostracize anyone. This is almost certainly romance, and false.

1. I am what some would call "straight-acting," which is to say you would not know I was gay if I did not tell you. When people in my high school did know, it was almost a non-issue, because they didn't have to deal with anything particularly unusual. I got some light teasing (one of them said I could not consider myself gay until I had "poked the brownstar"), but not much else. Another boy, by contrast, who was much more flamboyant than I and a year older, had a Halloween pumpkin thrown at his house and surely much worse.

2. I was friends with the more popular people in my class and school, and as such was never in such a low social position as to be scorned by my "superiors."

The third reason reason is probably not even an actual factor, but it makes a good little story. In middle school, 7th or 8th grade, a few of my (popular) friends and I would "gay it up" just for a laugh. This was during and after I had learned I was gay and came out to them and only them. Anyway, we would joke good-naturedly about fucking each other in the ass or something like that, and one day I had a sticker put on my locker that looked something like this:



A little inquiry discovered to us that the perpetrator was a very large boy from our class named Jay. Retaliation was swift and merciless:





We printed miniature versions of these images, plus a picture of a cow doctored to have the 'anti-Jay' sign branded on its side and with the caption, "Put to Pasture" (Jay was a very big boy), and distributed them to other students, $.25 each. I think we made three dollars.

Later that day we got called into the principal's office on some kind of harassment issue. If I recall, I told them I was gay (which Jay had not known), and this made our withering assault somewhat more understandable, and none of us got in any real trouble.

I'd like to think that episode set an early example for others that I (rather, my influential friends) was not to be fucked with, but I think items one and two above were much, much more pertinent.

So, yeah, about the only lessons my high school experience offers for tormented young gays are in fact pretty bad ones: blend in, be cool, and be untouchable. That's just not possible for some kids, and that's why I am not doing a video.

I have had my own issues, though, and my situation did improve, and is set to improve in the very near future. But that's a post for another time.

Gott Fag? 2

There's been a lively discussion at Ta-Nehisi Coates' place on gay mannerisms and speculating on whether Andrew Shirvell, who has blogged obsessively (and now exclusively; it's no longer publicly accessible.) about the gay student body president of his alma mater Chris Armstrong, is a closet case. Responses range from discomfort at stereotyping to "Well, duh." Generally there is concern that his clearly unhealthy obsession could turn dangerous.

For my part I see Shirvell, like all these cases, to be scorned and pitied, for it is obvious he is in deep denial about himself. It's in the eyes. They are constantly shifting and rarely looking at the camera straight on (so to speak). They betray a great strain and effort to maintain the facade, to continue in a futile attempt to prove not just to others but himself most of all, that he is not actually who he really is. (I say who and not what, for it is personhood and identity that are at stake here.)

Further evidence is the blog itself, with pictures of Armstrong scrawled on (using MS Paint, by the looks of it) with "Resign" and swastikas. This behavior is but a denial and perversion of the same impulse that makes the wistful write his beloved's name surrounded by hearts. When those channels of emotion are closed off and the object of affection becomes something the observer can never have or be, this is the sad and sorry result.

Gott Fag?

Yes, hypocrisy on the gay question really needs to stop. Not everybody who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds is a closet queen, of course not, but these moral oralists are barely convincing to their own congregations (I think the only reason we haven't heard about Rick Santorum's man-on-dog escapades is that he lost his re-election bid, but give it time). Christopher Hitchens summed it up well in his memoir:

Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite.

This happens with depressing regularity, yet outside of the bland and clumsy "hypocrite" we don't have a word or term to describe this subset of sleaze. I propose 'Gott Fag,' a portmanteau of a well-known advertising campaign, a derogatory slur, and the German word for God (normally pronounced like 'goat,' but that need not matter for our purposes), in whose name these horny homos hate. The next time you hear of a Catholic priest, a Larry Craig, a Ted Haggard, a Mark Foley, a Ken Mehlman, an Eddie Long... bloviating on how much he really wants to stick it to the gays and not the other way around, one need only ask oneself:

Gott Fag?

The question answers itself.

Buyer's Remorse, Anyone?

Twenty-seven percent of gay Americans voted for McCain in 2008. McCain today led the filibuster that killed debate on the provision to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I'm sure he's just trying to keep them out of harm's way.

The "Ick" Factor

Piggy-backing off that last post, let us also note which same-sex conduct is legally protected by the Obama administration....



...and which is not.

Law and Order

One of Sullivan's readers, on the Obama administration's defense of DOMA and DADT:

I think you are being a little more than disingenuous when you claim that the Obama administration is to the right of some conservatives with respect to DADT and marriage equality. Like a law or not, it is the duty and constitutional obligations of the executive branch to defend every law. While I disagree with DADT and believe DOMA to be unconstitutional, I still want the executive branch to litigate to uphold the legality of these laws. Once you set a precedent that an administration should not defend laws with which it disagrees, it will start to work against you. What would happen if a Republican administration decided not to defend challenges to EPA regulations or not to defend challenges to the constitutionality of health care reform? (Whether to appeal is a different matter.) You can fault the Obama administration of many things, but not for doing its constitutional duty.

What if Republican administrations decided to stop enforcing regulations of important industries? What would happen if a Republican administration decided not to uphold legally binding international laws against torture to which it is a signatory? What if subsequent administrations gave those lawbreakers near-total legal immunity?

Thank goodness we don't live in such an awful world.

Mehlman Comes Out

That former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman is gay is only half-surprising. The political landscape is littered with the wreckage of sanctimonious anti-gay bigots, to the point that to call it hypocritical flirts with cliche (but in a chaste, Platonic flirt, you understand). Mehlman, though, never made any huge political statements on gay marriage, but he gave the go-ahead on Republican attacks on gays. He claims not to have known he was gay until now, but as Dan Savage said, this "doesn't pass the smell-my-finger test," especially considering gay rumors had been floating around since 2004 or so. He may have been in terrible denial, which I would not wish on anybody. But the fact is he was in a position where could have prevented the Republicans from doing a lot of damage, or at least walked away from it, but he did nothing.

Since his tenure the situation has developed such that Californians, based entirely on a campaign of hysteric demagoguery, voted to strip gays of the right to marry. In Uganda, the parliament has introduced a bill that would criminalize homosexuality under pain of death, with the tacit approval of figures of the Christian right that have been instrumental in the gay political struggles here in the U.S. The Republicans are hostile and the Democrats tepid on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a move that 75% of Americans favor.

These are all things Mehlman can help on, and I'm sure he will. I'm frankly skeptical that he will be able to persuade any of his erstwhile allies of the rightness of marriage equality. It's very difficult to convince people who start with a conclusion and work their way backwards of anything. But Mehlman has a lot of atoning to do, and any constructive steps should be applauded and encouraged.

Poland: The Political Made Personal

Poland’s president Lech Kaczynski and 96 other Polish government officials died in a plane crash today. The loss of human life and the damage it’s done to a nation that has suffered plenty already—they were traveling to Russia to commemorate the anniversary of a WWII-era Soviet massacre of 22,000 Poles—should be enough to elicit condolence from anybody who cares about these things. Should be.

I came across a reaction to the disaster on JoeMyGod, a page I’ve frequented for gay news and a good yuk at the expense of the ignorant. The post was titled, “Anti-gay President of Poland Dies in Plane Crash With 96 Others” and, aside from an extended quote about the accident, existed mostly to point out Kaczynski’s extreme stance on gay marriage (that it would bring about the end of the human race). Much of JMG’s commentators responded accordingly, with crows of delight that a homophobe had been scrubbed from the Earth. Because in the moments immediately following a national tragedy, brandishing your pet political causes is what’s most important.

If words fail in responding to the crash, then what to make of the foul words of these responses? I should hope it would be enough to say that however repugnant one finds his opponents’ ideas, there ought to be afforded a baseline respect.* But apparently it isn’t, so perhaps a few thought experiments are in order. JMG’s readership is, I assume, largely American liberal, so I pose a few questions calibrated toward their particular prejudices:

1. Do those celebrating Kaczynski’s death oppose the death penalty, as most liberals do?
2. What was their response to the assassination of George Tiller?
3. What if Barack Obama is assassinated?

If these ghouls delight in the accidental death of an anti-gay politician, then for consistency they ought support the state-sanctioned death of violent criminals—including gay bashers! Likewise, if Kaczynski’s freak accident is to be celebrated, then his politically-motivated murder, had events played out that way, should have been applauded, as some did that of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller. By that same token, then, the Tea Party rapture that would greet an Obama assassination would simply have to be chalked up to a difference in opinion. But JMG readers like Obama, or at least don’t want him to die, so if that were to happen, maybe they could take comfort in how awesome it would have been if Bush had been gunned down or choked to death on a pretzel, because if someone doesn’t like someone else, then he is entitled to bask in his opponent’s physical destruction, no matter the respect the office commands.



* I’ll admit that I enjoyed** Christopher Hitchens’ dancing on Jerry Falwell’s grave, but in my defense I’ll say that 1) Falwell was old and died naturally, no untimely end there, and 2) Falwell was not an elected national leader, but a spotlight-seeking demagogue; even Poles—including gay Poles—who did not like Kaczynski are in a state of national mourning.
**Edited for redundant phrasing

Why is He Still In?

Perhaps I'm being simplistic, but the fact that the judge presiding over the case to overturn Proposition 8 is himself gay would seem to have potential to invalidate any ruling he makes. He has a personal stake in the outcome; he could get married if Prop 8 is stricken down. If we are to complain when the former CEO of Halliburton awards the company no-bid contracts to rebuild the nation he just leveled, what to make of a gay judge legalizing gay marriage, regardless of the worthiness of the endeavor and the manifest awfulness of the pro-discrimination side?

This isn't even an evaluation of his character, just a plea for standard jurisprudence: the arbiter should be an unbiased party. It would revive all the anguish of November 2008 to see what looks to be an airtight case be dismissed on an avoidable technicality.

EDIT: Furthermore, having a straight judge would have strengthened the hand for the pro-marriage-equality side: that a heterosexual would have nothing to personally gain or lose in this fight would implicitly vindicate the position that gay marriage would have no impact on heteros.

Meanwhile, Across the Pond

It's worth noting as well the differences in public attitudes towards gay people between America and Britain. As just noted, in American sports homosexuality is still a major taboo, which should be dealt with as aggressively as possible. In the U.K., on the other hand, Wales' greatest rugby player recently came out of the closet, while straight English rugby player Ben Cohen has cultivated a gay fanbase by being an outspoken advocate and releasing a steamy calendar.

Remember, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

Because Queer Still Means Not Normal

Frank Rich's column this week is off-base. Certainly, Don't Ask, Don't Tell has lost favor in every segment of the American population, even amongst conservatives. But to take this as a signal of broader acceptance of gay rights is mistaken. Lest we forget, California voters passed Proposition 8 over a year ago, Maine passed anti-marriage-equality initiative just a few months ago.

More alarmingly, anti-gay attitudes have become more comfortably nestled in today's culture. Witness CBS' rejecting an ad for gay dating site, Mancrunch.com while allowing Focus on the Family to encourage women to ignore their doctors' advice on the off chance that their endangered baby might survive, not kill them in the process, and become a professional athlete.



This, after having already communicated that if two guys kiss, they need to quickly reassert their manliness because...well, just because.



I haven't heard any larger outrage about it beyond the usual political players, which would suggest it's business as usual for contemporary America.

Clinton "Basically" Supports Gay Marriage

The man who presided o'er, passed, anti-gay laws,
Comes out of that closet to aid the gay cause.
Bill Clinton's in favor,
But he never wavered!
He'd never admit to a previous faux pas.

Not Stonewall...

The Rainbow Lounge raided by five brutal swine,
Who proceeded to tread over reas'nable lines.
Arrested they seven,
Sent one near to heaven,
And used the Gay Panic defense. They are lying.

Stonewall, 40 Years On

Two score years ago, when two guys couldn't score,
The gays kept unseen, as they had before.
Our progress commendable,
We still seem expendable:
Obama seems hardly to care anymore.